Posted
by
Soulskill
on Tuesday February 18, 2014 @07:23PM
from the sanitized-to-remove-any-promises-or-useful-information dept.

bostonidealist writes "The White House has officially responded to a We The People petition created on January 15, 2014, which urged the President to 'direct the FCC to classify ISPs as "common carriers"' after the D.C. U.S. Court of Appeals 'struck down the Federal Communications Commission's open internet rules.' The White House statement says, 'absent net neutrality, the Internet could turn into a high-priced private toll road that would be inaccessible to the next generation of visionaries,' but notes, 'The FCC is an independent agency. Chairman Wheeler has publicly pledged to use the full authority granted by Congress to maintain a robust, free and open Internet — a principle that this White House vigorously supports.'"

-nch?
Now there are indeed laws by which the FCC must operate. There is for example a law or are laws that define what a common carrier is.
So how about hurling metric boatloads of attorneys, engineers, sociologists or what have you, at the FCC, to convince them that ISPs are really common carriers?
At one time an ISP was arguably an information provider, say when they all provided Usenet feeds. But it has been more than ten years since I've been able to get a feed from any ISP.
I don't even get my em

"So how about hurling metric boatloads of attorneys, engineers, sociologists or what have you, at the FCC, to convince them that ISPs are really common carriers?"How about that? have you sent them a letter? have you contact local experts to get them to send a letter? organize anything?

Or do you just complain until someone else does all the work?And yes, logically they are common carriers.

... that is, should he have chosen to sign the laws, the laws passed without his signature while Congress was in recess, or the congress overrode his veto.

Strictly speaking, President Obama cannot just declare that ISPs are Common Carriers. I expect the law says that the FCC determines that, and FDR or some such signed the law that established the FCC, at the time the Common Carrier status was to regulate the phone companies.

However the president does have a lot of power, as I said, to present evidence to

... that is, should he have chosen to sign the laws, the laws passed without his signature while Congress was in recess, or the congress overrode his veto.

Like he did with the ACA, arbitrarily delaying the employer mandate by a year, then arbitrarily extending that mandate for another year for some businesses (specifically, the businesses the mandate was put into the law for)?

I've lost count the number of times this administration has promised that the "intent" of what they want is vastly different than the law they just passed. I have double plus confidence in the future admins carrying the torch of the spirit of these laws.

Last administration gave us the 'war on terror', the PATRIOT Act(with the DHS and TSA), and two wars that have cost us over a trillion US dollars; the list goes back a ways, and is a long list of tomfoolery.

The 'playlist for the dance' will remain the same as long as there are effectively only two parties to choose from at voting time.

It is currently close to impossible for any candidate to get support enough to pose a threat to the Democr

The 'playlist for the dance' will remain the same as long as there are effectively only two parties to choose from at voting time.

And this is why you should support every Tea Party candidate that you can. Now, wait, hear me out. You may not agree with their politics, but you have to admit they're really stirring people up, both on the left and the right. Now, I know, what you're going to say: "They'll ruin our entire system, set the rights of $GROUP back 100 years, make the middle class poor, make the rich richer, and leave us all out to hang and dry!"

And you'd probably be right. And I support that. Yes, I support my quality of life dropping, at least temporarily, if it means we can reboot this entire thing and start over again. There are millions of sane, level-headed liberal folks out there who realize the mess of shit we're in. Just as there are millions of sane, level-headed conservatives out there who realize the same. You see, the average, middle class working person, which whether we admit it on Slashdot or not, most of us are, aren't in support of socialism, no more than we are in support of capitalism. It's a balance. It's not black and white, we're for a decent world to live in. One we can hand down to the next generation and say "See, we tried not to fuck it up so bad, made a few things better, made a few things worse. Give it a shot and see how you do."

But we need to get back to basics. We need a government that builds and maintains infrastructure. Roads, schools, sanitation, water, energy systems. At least at the basic level. We can still have toll roads, we can still have private schools, for those who want them. But government needs to get out of the business of micromanaging people's lives. Now, why should you support the Tea Party? Because if you're so sure they're going to fuck everything up beyond recognition, bring the whole system crashing down to the ground, LET THEM! Then you can rebuild it with your input as you see fit.

As it stands, it's the only real option we have left. No one wants violence or any of that kind of thing here in America. Call it exceptionalism, call it whatever denigrating term you want, I think we're above it. We're not stupid enough to end up shedding the blood of our own people, are we? Over such bullshit as Obamacare, or welfare, or abortion? We can agree to disagree. We can find a compromise that works for everyone, if we stop letting the power structure call all the shots and control every debate with the black and white all or nothing rhetoric. We're not all so different. Not as different as you'd think we are if you watch cable news or read every political blog on the web. We really can fucking get along without secession or violence or this radical idea or that radical idea. But we need to reboot, and the only way to do that is by electing someone who's not a D or an R.

Put the partisan, emotionally charged rhetoric down just long enough to get our country (world?) back. Then we can get right on back to debating about minutia and Justin Bieber. But the hole in the ship isn't getting any smaller, and the guys with the blue and red hammers and nails are only using them to beat us about the head. We can get back to that once we use them to fix the hole and pump out the water. Anyone but the incumbent. That's my vote.

If you tear down all the power structures, it's not like you'd have freedom. Tear it down to indivudals and those indivuals wlll immediately start to form gangs, because one man is weak. You mess with one gang member, you mess with the whole gang. Then you need to form some form of mututal defense which will become a power structure of its own and from there it will simply escalate until you have countries with nukes to defend themselves against other countries with nukes. And with every power system comes

This thread is going to be full of whining. Lots of blame. Lots of arguing. Lots of links to sources.... but no action.

Wolf-PAC.com. Go. sign up. DO SOMETHING. I drove an hour today to get to my state capitol, visited my state rep, and asked him to sponsor legislation to call for an article V convention to FIX the problem. The problem isn't and R or a D next to someone's name. It's that money buys influence. It's that our reps are elected almost completely based on who raises the most money. And that isn't their fault. It's YOURS.

You vote based on partisan hackery and don't bother to educate yourselves. You're all fired up to argue on the internet, but can't be bother to call your damn rep and tell them what's on your mind. And to boot, you vote based on made up knee jerk reactions. They're playing you like a fiddle. Ok, mostly the Right here, I really do have to show my bias.:D Really, a Muslim? A secret Muslim? F'ing stupid... but the laziness crosses party lines.

Fix your brain, get off your ass, and go FIX IT. Stop whining on the internet. Stop arguing uselessly with random strangers on the internet. It wasn't even that hard to call my rep, get a meeting, and start working on a solution.

Sorry, I'm a little frustrated by all the stupid arguing. Also, the stupidity. Go. wolf-pac.com. Sign up. Work with the people in your state (many of whom are in the OTHER party, and you'll hang out with them and discover they're actually quite intelligent and put a lot of thought into their beliefs).

I'm not saying one person writing a letter is going to get an entrenched politician to change a core political platform. That's silly.

What I am saying, is that it is MORE effective then filing a petition on the white house's petition board.

Your congressman might not actually read your letter but he'll be informed of the "numbers" of people and letter that comment for or against a given issue. The president of the United States spend ZERO time with that petition system. None. It is 100 percent driven by staf

I love how all the Slashdot Libertarians who are all about Internet Corporate Freedom (that is, against any laws the actually protect consumers from selective throttling and other anti-neutrality bullshit) are suddenly in favor of net neutrality now that the Obama administration has said that they're not going to do anything about it.

I dont remember any libertarians wanting the cable to be considered anything other than dumb pipes to begin with. I love how people on slashdot love to tell others what they believe before they get a chance to say anything about it....

Well, not all of you, but definitely those of you who are simple minded enough to become caught up in party politics as though it makes a difference in the outcome of anything decided in Washington.

And you poor sad bastards who actually believe that the whitehouse petitions are anything more than pacifiers to quiet your whining, did you actually believe that any substantive changes would come about as a result of you signing a petition? Seriously? Change doesn't happen in Washington unless someone in the go

It's like you didn't even read what he said, or just assume he *means* the opposite of what he says..

Its like YOU didn't read what he said.

He said nothing, he promised nothing.

Instead he delivered PURE 100% Obama speak for "Yeah I hear you, now STFU and stop raining on my parade."

The FCC is an independent agency. Chairman Wheeler has publicly pledged to use the full authority granted by Congress to maintain a robust, free and open Internet — a principle that this White House vigorously supports.'

He sort of fails to notice the Courts just took away all of that Congressionally Granted Power.

He sort of fails to notice the Courts just took away all of that Congressionally Granted Power.

The courts took away nothing. Anyone who was following the story knew that it was almost certain to go that way - the FCC didn't have the authority to create a "third option" the way that it did. The FCC can either classify ISPs as telecommunications providers or not, that's pretty much it.

Obama has weighed in to the extent that he's able. It would be nice if people would some day figure out that the independent agencies that comprise the federal government are independent for a reason. Every time you push for Obama to just roll in and take over the FCC or the justice department, etc., and make them do what you want them to do, and every time you blame Obama for failing to take these drastic steps, what you're really pushing for is a greater degree of authoritarianism. When you say that you hold the president accountable for everything that the federal government does, what you're really saying is that you want the president to directly control all of the federal government.

The FCC can either classify ISPs as telecommunications providers or not, that's pretty much it.

Obama has weighed in to the extent that he's able.

These sentences are logically incompatible. Obama is the head of the executive branch; he therefore has absolute authority over the FCC. If the FCC is authorized by Congress to classify ISPs as telecommunication providers, then Obama can dictate that it does so.

Check your facts - while he's spent more than any other president, the spending is only 11.2% more than Bush. His new spending, removing existing spending he inherited from Bush in 2009, is $203 billion (2005 adjusted $) and the total since that high point has reduced 5%. By comparison Bush increased spending (again, adjusted) by 33% in his first term and 34% in his second. Regan increased spending 41.2% during his presidency.

Adjusted for inflation, Obama has increased the budget by a lower % than any president since Herbert Hoover.

Except Obama didn't spend the money. Congress did. Obama signs laws. The laws the gave the budget crunch were on the books before he got to office. There would be less debt if there were a grand bargain in 2011.

Well if we're going by what congress spends, then we need to start counting at 2007 when Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid took over. They are responsible for the spending handed to Obama. The last Republican budget signed into law had a deficit of 161 billion.

Very good point, and I'm in total agreement. 1913 was a disastrous year for the country. The 16th and 17th amendments were ratified, and the federal reserve was created. That was the year that the people gave the government the ability to destroy the country.

You're the retard. Are you saying the defense budget didn't contain funds for the wars? Did they spend money out of some black slush fund that was never really appropriated? Have you really been sitting here all these years, thinking that the reason deficits under Obama went well past the trillion dollar mark, is because he added the "wars to the budget"? What budget?

He's actually not the retard, he's informed.
Money need not come from a fiscal year budget act. A great example is the $1.4T deficit of FY2008. The budget as passed had a $400B deficit between outlays and projected receipts. TARP and the ARRA were both passed after the FY2008 budget was passed, making them "off-budget", giving us a total deficit of 800B. Then, outlays came up $800B short of the amount projected on the budget. This was actually a systemic issue during Bush. Many budgets were passed with vastly optimistic receipt projections, making their budgeted deficits artificially low.
It seems common for people to use absolute dollars when trying to hammer on Obama for the deficit, and then reducing it to mere percentages when talking about the reduction in the deficit that has occurred since FY2008. To put it in absolute dollars, the deficit today is $700B less than it was the year he took office, or said another way- Obama has presided over the largest spending reduction in US history. That's of course a slanted viewpoint, but so is the one being peddled trying to make him appear to be a spend-monger.

It's actually more severe than that - the legislative brach passes BINDING LAWS that appropriate money, and the executive branch merely complies with the laws passed.

Everyone likes to blame the President for budget deficits, but outside of asking nicely for stuff at the beginning of the process, and putting his signature on whatever comes back from Congress in the end, he / she has fuck-all to do with how it's divided up. That's how the Founders wanted it, and that's how it still is.

I do love how, to prove Obama is bad (and he IS bad, just for REAL reasons... ), people trot out the debt. Yes. It's high. Yes, Obama spent a lot of money. But lets face it, the deficit is going DOWN, not up. He inherited a mess, he's cleaning it up, and if we want to blame anyone, we should blame the folks that repealed the Glass-Steagal act (which includes Clinton) for creating our gigantic mess.

If you want to hate on Obama, stick to real facts. There are plenty of reasons to hate on Obama. But he's not responsible for the accumulation of all the debt that came before him, nor is he responsible for the economic situation that we find ourselves in. Go blame the assholes that deregulated an industry that almost immediately started creating a gigantic economic bubble and then begged for help when it popped.

People that argue against different presidents based on spending should be shunned.

First, the conversation devolves into uber-lameness where different jackasses start trotting out more shitty numbers out their ass.

Conversations with things like "But as a percent of GDP divided by the number of years, adjusted for inflation." are fucking lame. Use real reasons to make an argument --- even if the argument is wrong, anything is better than a nerd numbers fight.

The GP's point is that excessive spending (or anything connected to the budget whatsoever) is the least of the reasons why Obama is bad. If you want to complain about Obama, complain about how he reneged on his promises to close Guantanamo, end domestic spying, repeal the PATRIOT [sic] Act, respond meaningfully to things like FOIA requests and these petitions, etc. In other words, complain about how he is a treasonous, totalitarian liar who should be both impeached and tried for crimes against humanity in i

We wouldn't have to have Congress raise the debt ceiling, if Congress would stop authorizing spending that necessitates the creation of more debt. Let's see if we can make this a bit more simple:

1. Congress passes a binding law saying that the government WILL spend $X on $Y.2. The Executive branch then complies with the law, spending $X on $Y. However, $X happens to be less than $Z in federal tax receipts, so $B treasury bonds need to be sold in order to comply with the la

it's especially silly when the President, spending all those dump trucks of cash, is only complying with the law that Congress passed. Outside of signing the appropriations bills, the President has fuck-all to do with setting spending levels.

Wait, you're suggesting that numbers dumb down political discussions? Did you actually just use "nerd numbers" as a negative in slashdot of all places? Did you just say that arguments that are wrong are better than arguments with numbers?

I suppose if you like your politics like you like your wrestling, that's reasonable. I find though that the Dunning–Kruger effect is what you get when you discard things like numbers and facts. "MY political alignment is the CORRECT one, and I know this because

You mean the network that spent the entire time talking about the visit from the president of France's reason for showing up single last week instead of his actual agenda for visiting? That Fox news? Oh wait... That was every American station except Al Jazeera. There is a reason why getting involved in these arguments is futile. Our major news networks spend more time covering a drag race by Justin Bieber or if Bill de Blazio ate a pizza wrong rather than in depth factual reporting about what is actuall

Honestly, the deficit was almost entirely a creation of the recession. There is no evidence that anything the federal government has done actually improved or worsened the overall economic situation. Whatever models they might use, the comparison of actual unemployment rates to their projections with and without the stimulus proves that their models are wrong. I suspect the stimulus and TARP actually slowed the rate of recovery, but it's not actually provable without an alternate reality to check it agai

He didn't do shit, other than sign his name to CONGRESSIONAL appropriation bills.

CONGRESS controls spending, CONGRESS controls debt. The Executive only enacts the laws that CONGRESS passes saying what money should go where; if tax receipts don't match up with the spending that is authorized by CONGRESS, then the Executive comes up with the money the only way they can - with the debt that CONGRESS already authorized, or will authorize by raising the statutory debt ceiling, created by CONGRESS.

Bush is neither the worst nor Obama the best. Debt is 17.3 trillion - adjusted for inflation 5.47 trillion of that can be attributed to the years Obama was president.3.87 trillion of it can be attributed to Bush.

Keep digging, when you get right down to the bottom you will find that "wealth" itself is an intellectual construct invented around the same time as agriculture. None of it is "real" because ALL economic exchanges are ultimately based on trust. If you don't trust greenbacks then it just means you are at odds with a "free market" that considers US treasury bonds "safer than gold".

The funny thing is --

Chinese workers are paid with Chinese money. You are paid in greenbacks and I'm pretty certain you would complain if you were hand

The funny thing is -- considering how we just print more money --- is that the Arabs and Chinese are eager too take our funny money as payment for oil or electronics.
250 million Chinese toil away in factoriies for some greenbacks hastily printed in the USA with numbers like "$100" or "$1000" on them.
Quite a racket we are running --- let us hope it lasts!
American: "Can I buy a tanker of your oil for this suitcase of paper --- I mean dollars?"

Oil must be purchased in dollars. That alone guarantees demand for dollars, since everyone needs oil. The US makes threatening gestures, and sometimes much more, towards anyone who seeks to change that relationship. I don't think it is a coincidence that countries that challenged that arrangement (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Venezuela, etc.) ended up on Washington's shit list. I'm not saying it's the only reason, but it is an important factor that no one talks about in public.

This only works if you statistically cast Bush in the worst light possible, and Obama in the best. The fact remains that the national debt is now 17.3 trillion. Obama has spent far, far, more money that we don't have than any previous president.

Yeah, but it's all money we don't have. Once you learn how the American dollar works, and where it comes from, you will see that the debt can only increase. It can fluctuate, but the way our monetary system is structured can only lead to ever increasing debt, either by the government or the citizenry. Every dollar in existence is a dollar borrowed. All the talk about the deficit and the debt and paying it down and whatever, is only a side show. The debt only goes up; it's built into the system.

His point is that it's not 100s of executive orders every day, which is what the OP was saying. It's funny how Republicans and Tea Baggers claim Obama is a dictator but when their guy was in office, they were strangely quiet.

Actually the "teabaggers" as you put it were not happy with bush either. You need to remember that the tea party happened not as a an anti obama group but as an anti establishment group. They were just a smuch again the mccains and romneys and bushes as they are the democrats. So as the democrats like to remind me when I mention they were the ones who were pro slavery and pro jim crow, things change. The current republicans (IE anyone elected since 2006 or so) are NOT the same people that supported bush

*sigh* 2 minutes of Googling demonstrates that average hasn't actually changed much:
https://www.federalregister.go... [federalregister.gov]
2013 - 21
2012 - 38
2011 - 33
2010 - 35
2009 - 39
Super majority or not, he signed more in the first two years than he did in the second two.

You can't hold a gun to heads of the American People like that. Defunding anything that was passed into law and found constitutional is extreme, regardless of the quality or effects of the law. Congress isn't actually allowed to do anything.

Do we have an issue with the Supreme Court? The agency has limited terms, and have to be appointed, other than that they are supposed to be free of the authority to prevent people from swaying their job, so they can remain impartial...

What do you expect, he is from Illinois the state and city known for corruption in all their politicians. What kills me is people still think he is doing a good job, if he would have KEPT his promises and was a leader like he acted he was, this would be different. But honestly he acts more like Dick Cheney than Dick Cheney did. I'm waiting for the man to shoot someone in the face.

Well, the FCC is independent dontchaknow. Its apparently no longer in the executive branch, so its none of Obama's concern what it does.

At least thats what the response seems to say. Meanwhile, on other fronts hes busy creating powers which the president never was supposed to have, like the ability to override already passed legislation by simply ignoring it.

He should have been stopped right there. How is an agency which reports directly to the President in any way independent? The President hires the heads of the FCC (so long as they can get through the Senate pissing match).

How is the that "best thing?" That is the worst outcome. It is better for people to want to change their government, than for them to just not care at all. If it disillusioned them about political parties, then I'd support your statement, but outright not wanting a voting populace goes against the very fabric of this structure we call a nation.

What some people on the right wing mean by "small government" is - small enough to drown in a bathtub. They believe government is "in the way" and the less there is of it the better. These people are so naïve about human nature that they actually believe social harmony can be obtained via absolute freedom, oddly that is the same problem the extreme left wing "flower power" people had when I was a kid. They expect that people will be fair minded with each other when government gets "out of the way". They think people will respect property rights, etc, without any enforcement. They think a gun rack over the mantelpiece will be a deterrent to an aspiring warlord. Basically they live in a thought bubble blown by people who want to control them, but to do that they must first tear down the protections afforded by the existing social structure.

Now here's the funny/ironic part, these people think a center-right president is the one with the radical agenda!

It gets better when you realize that the rest of the right wing mean by smaller government is one run exclusively by them.

Look at it this way the republican who wrote the patriot act is pissed that a democrat is abusing his law in such a way. his answer. it isn't smaller government but to pay a dedicated top secret clearance law firm tens of millions of dollars annually to justify the poorly written law.

If republicans really wanted smaller government then they should be trying to get things like the patriot act NSA spying programs not only under control but shut down to save on government spending. but not one republican will actually push for that.

This is fucking insipid. But as long as it adds to the mirage that Your Government Cares, then let the show go on right?

I think any communication between the public and our government that is open and transparent has value. Even if it does not get the desired result immediately, it influences public opinion in our government as the people observe the ebb and flow of government in action. Government officials are almost always influenced to at least some degree by their public perception.

Communication with no action is worthless.It's the fucking government. They're supposed to act and respond to the needs of their constituents by doing what they were hired to do, set policies and pass laws. Saying "Sorry, can't do nothing about that, move along" doesn't do anything.

True, and well-worded, but I think it's a bunch of handwaving. If he truly believed in an open internet, he'd do something about this more than just saying: "I'm gonna let them handle it"

You must be new to this whole "government" thing.

In general they do nothing. And in general that is actually the best response.

Usually when they do take fast action it is the wrong action. The kneejerk reaction laws are written by organizations that have their own aggressive agendas, they provide them to the legislators during an emergency under the promise that the bad provisions can be corrected later... but they seldom are.

The correct course, even though it is slow and tedious and painful, is for Congress to act deliberately.

Even in the best of times trying to force Congress to pass a law that benefits the people is nearly impossible. Often it requires a massive upswelling, grand marches and presentations and events that are daily on the news until the congress-critters realize they must take action or lose their jobs. In the worst of times, like today, even that wouldn't work since they cn trivially deflect the most severe upheavals with "We worked on a bill but the other party shut it down".

Examples of that were the civil rights movement, the Vietnam and Korean war protests, more recently we have the occupy movement and the tea party movement. It takes considerable force to make congress move, and even these multi-million member groups tend to produce only slight changes in government.

Sadly, the correct action is also the action we are least likely to see. It may not be the one the nation wants, but given the national attitudes and apathy, it is probably the one we deserve.

he correct course, even though it is slow and tedious and painful, is for Congress to act deliberately.

Congress doesn't need to act. All they need to do is use some of the consumer protection laws and actually protect the consumer. These internet service providers actually sell access to the internet and they make claims to the speed and reliability in the process of selling it. If comcast or Time Warner or ATT or anyone wants to limit the internet on purpose, they are falsely advertising and committing fr

Up to infers best effot though. Otherwise the language would need to be excep when. So i guess the question is "does "up to" encompass when they are purposely and specifically intentful in limiting to less". I say no because there is no chance of up to if they refuse to allow the speed wich is completely different than something outside their control causing the limitations.

Look at it this way. If i made and sold a car, and in the process i said it would do 70mph am i being fraudulent when i install a mecha

Your post is full of learned helplessness. It shouldn't require a huge wasteful social movement to maintain the public interest in telecommunications or other things. Neutralizing Glass-Steagal didn't require any such thing.

You need to read his post more carefully. He said, "Even in the best of times trying to force Congress to pass a law that benefits the people is nearly impossible." Passing laws that benefit wealthy individuals or corporations is decidedly easier. To get movement out of Congress requires large numbers of people or dollars. People are hard to organize and keep engaged, never mind agreeing on an agenda. Money, on the other hand, is easy to organize and direct for the people who have plenty of it.

We don't really know that petitions don't get attention from the WH, but it is an interesting question.
I suggest we start a petition for the WH tell us whether they take petitions under serious consideration or not.

I don't think there has ever been a drastic and/or immediate shift in policy based on a "We the People" petition... no (I could be wrong, so fee free to correct me here if needed)

However by simply answering the petition, the White House has helped to illuminate the problem for the less tech savvy folks who still follow politics. You'd be astonished (or maybe you wouldn't) to realize how many people have absolutely zero idea what "Net Neutrality" actually means. This response, no matter how neutered, will cause at least a small percentage of people to say "Hold on a second. What's this 'free and open Internet' concept?"

Couple that with the real or perceived repercussions and non-techs may actually start putting the pieces together "Why is my netflix so slow today? And what is the white house babbling about now? hey!" light bulb

The doublespeak and equivocation from the Obama administration on these issues is pretty appalling. I'm sure he's carefully balancing saying that he wants to keep the campaign contributions rolling in but in a way that doesn't immediately alienate half the Democratic base.

I kind of hope that he realizes sooner rather than later that this is his last term and that he doesn't have to worry about getting re-elected in 2016 so he can finally